Jeffery A. Young, PhDDistrict 3 Director
University of KentuckyCooperative Extension Service
What is Job Embeddedness?
Assessing factors from on and off the job, it includes an individual’s (a) links to other people, teams and
groups, (b) perception of their fit with their job,
organization and community and (c) what they say they would have to
sacrifice if they left their job.
Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski & Erez, (2001) Academy of Management Journal
Job Embeddedness –
“a net or a web in which one can become stuck”
Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski & Erez, (2001) Academy of Management Journal
Links - Connections
Organizational Age Marital Status Number and
Ages of Children Years of Service Professional Org. Work Teams Benefits
Community Hobbies Church-related
Activities Memberships in
Community Organizations
Local schools Home ownership Physical Location
Fit – Perceived Comfort
Organizational Work schedules Co–workers Work
environment Mission and
Values Career Goals Job skills and
abilities
Community Weather Outdoor
Activities Entertainment Political Climate Religious Climate Urban/Rural
nature of community
Sacrifice – What Will I Loose
Organizational Salary Benefits Perks Friendships Status Power Position
Community Length of time in
home Home
Personalization Distance of
commute Safety Community
leadership Friends and
neighbors Family - children
and parents
Context for Extension RetentionStudy Extension agents have high retention
rates No known studies examining Job
Embeddedness of Extension agents Results could help lower unwanted
turnover costs in other employee sub-sectors (Tziner & Birati, 1996)
Extension Agents in Other States Extension Support Staff and Para-
Professionals Other Public Employment Sectors
Purpose of the Study Understand retention amongst Extension
agents through the lens of Job Embeddedness
Contribute to the Job Embeddedness literature
Develop recommendations for Extension Human Resource professionals Extension agents Paraprofessionals and Support Staff (lower
retention)
Industry Retention Rate
Total U.S. 76.6%
Government 90.2%
Education and Health Service 81.4%
Health Care and Social Assistance 80.4%
Construction 71.3%
Retail Trade 65.3%
Leisure and Hospitality 47.8%
Food Service 43.6%
Retention other Sectors
State 2005-06 2006-07 2007-
08
2008-09 2009-10 Means
KY 96.4% 96.2% 95.1% 96.7% 97.3% 96.34%
TN 93.81% 94.1% 95.67% 98.13% 95.88% 95.12%
KS 98% 92% 94% 95% 98% 95.40%
LSU 96.87% 94.69% 95.24% 94.99% 92.54% 94.87%
MO 96% 98% 97.7% 97.23%
Five States’ Agricultural Extension Agent Retention Data over Five years. Note: Retention data provided by respective state’s HR departments at the request of Martha Thompson, UK Employment Specialist.
Extension Retention Rates
86% of employers experience difficulty attracting new employees (Ramlall 2003, p. 63)
58% of employers experience difficulty retaining their employees (Ramlall 2003, p. 63)
$80,000 per employee (Kutilek, 2000)
Costs Associated with Agent Turnover
150% of position salary (Friedman, D., Galinsky, E., & Plowden, V., 1992).
Currently approximately 8000 Extension Agents in U.S.
A 1% increase in retention could save $6.4 million replacement costs annually (80 agents x $80K)
Costs Associated with Agent Turnover
Census Research Census research was used to gather data from
population.
Online survey was distributed to all members of population.
454 total respondents State A = 313 State B = 141 72% total response rate
The researcher used quantitative methods including chi square tests, ANOVA, MANOVA, and Linear Regression.
631 Extension agents in population
38.2% Male
61.8% Female
46.4% Bachelors Degree52.9% Masters<1% PhD
96.3% White/ 3.1% African American/ <1% other
Avg. Age – 43.9
Description of Population
Gender
Race
Age
Extension Work Experience
Previous Work Experience
Type of Previous Work Experience
Education Level
Program Area
County Population
Research Question One
Does job embeddedness differ between State A and State B Extension agents?
Yes, ANOVA test showed a significant difference in the means, which corresponded to differences in respective retention rates.
MANOVA test showed that the significant differences between states lies in theFit Community and Links Organization components.Mitchell, et al. (2001); and Allen, (2006).
Research Question Two
Correlations between Job Embeddedness, Intent to Stay and Discretionary Effort
Were the relationships between job embeddedness, intent to stay and discretionary effort significant. Yes, moderate
(Lee et al., 2004)
Job Embeddedness
Intent to
Stay
Discretionary
Effort
Job Embeddedness 1 .22** .33**Intent to Stay 1 -.01Discretionary Effort 1
Research Question 3
Source
β coefficients Sacrifice
communitySacrifice
organization
Fit community
Fit organizatio
n
Links community
Links organization
Total job embedded
nessGender (Female)
Male -.04
-.01
.03
-.017
.02
.12*
.02
Race (White) African American .02 -.10* .17 -.12* .11 -.20 -.06American Indian -.13* -.21* -11* -.17* -.10* -.05 -.18*
Education level (Bachelors)
Masters .22 .16 .31 -.02 .72* -.62* .09Doctoral .51 .41 .74 .03 .82* -.74* .26
Age (22-27 yrs) Age 28-32 -.10 -.22* -.02 -.08 -.12 .06 -.07Age 33-38 -.05 -.28* -.02 -.05 -.05 .03 -.04Age 39-43 -.03* -.27* -.02 -.07 -.06 -.02 -.05Age 44-49 -.04* -.22* -.01 -.03 -.04 -.03 -.03Age 50-55 -.09 -.04 .00 -.00 -.02 -.02 -.02Age 56-61 -.01 -.03 .00 -.02 -.00 -.01 -.01Age 62up -.30* -.30* -.08 -.36 -.34 .00 -.24*
Program area (ANR)
FCS -.17 .04 -.08 .12 -.10 -.13 -.054-H -.11 .04 .01 .07 -.07 -.09 -.03
Horticulture -.08 .05 -.02 .08 -.06 -.10 -.02CED .07 .13 .16 .18 .03 -.12 .07
Other -.15 .07 .09 .23 -.19 -.42 -.06 Years Ext (0-5 yrs)
6-10 -.05 -.03 -.17 -.33* .01 -.08 -.1911-15 -.05 -.06 -.11 -.29* -.00 .02 -.1616-20 -.05 -.06 -.09 -.21* -.07 .02 -.18
21-25 -.03 -.04 -.06 -.21* -.03 .02 -.1426-30 -.01 -.05 -.04 -.18* -.03 -.04 -.16*31-35 .02 -.02 -.02 -.11 -.02 -.03 -.06
36+ -.19 .09 -.53 -.19 -.11 -.19 -.20Years Prior Exp. (0-5 yrs)
6-10 .00 -.02 -.02 -.14* -.02 -.12 -.0511+ .07 .00 -.10 -.18* .01 -.05 -.05
Prior type (Public) Private -.15* -.06 -.01 -.15* -.05 -.01 -.13
Non Profit -.12 -.06 -.08 -.11 -.05 .03 -.09County population (under 10,000 K)
10-30 K .16* .08 .04 .20* .02 -.37* .0030-60 K .07 .02 .02 .08 .00 -.17* -.02
60-100K .05 .04 .04 .06 -.01 -.12* .02100K + .08 .08 -.03 .12 -.06 -.89* -.11
Sig. .00 .00 .03 .00 .00 .00 .00R2 .16 .15 .10 .16 .12 .22 .16Adj. R2 .10 .09 .04 .10 .06 .16 .09
Are background variables significantly related to and able to predict job embeddedness?
Not really.
Age – (Giosam, 2003)Education – (Tanova &Holtom, 2008)County Population – (Vlosky & Dunn, 2009)
Research Question 4
Intent to Stay Model
Variable β R2
Step 1
Organization Commitment .25*
Employee Engagement -.06
Job Satisfaction .15*
Block .14
Step 2
Discretionary Effort -.12*
Block
.15
Step 3
Job Embeddedness
Sacrifice Community -.06
Sacrifice Organization .24*
Fit Community .05
Fit Organization -.07
Links Community -.07
Links Organization -.08
Block .20
Can Job Embeddedness influence Intent to Stay?
Sacrifice Organization increases,
Intent to Stay increases.
(Mitchell et at, 2001, p. 30)
JE not meant to replace other existing theories, but is a Supplement, adding to the discussion of retention. Results support this.
Implications Expanded use of Job Embeddedness
scale More studies necessary Longitudinal studies Comparison studies with other
employee groupsParaprofessionalsSupport Staff
Sacrifice Organization strongest predictor of Intent to Stay
Implications - continued Job Embeddedness and Intent to
Stay are relatively low Extension agents are staying but are
not attached Situation is Alarming
“I have stayed with Extension because it’s the best place to work” M = 2.35 (disagree) Intent to Stay Item.
Discretionary Effort High – M = 4.30
Implications - continued Tools available to HRD to help embed
employees to organization and community. Some may be having the opposite effect
desired What are some of the most valued
employee benefits?
insuranceretirementemployee education
Increasing Job Embeddedness
Fit Organization Use realistic job
descriptions Look for employees
whose values fit with organization
Socialization Opportunities
Develop schedules to fit employee needs
Fit Community Recruit locally
where possible Avoid mandatory
relocation as much as possible
Encourage employee involvement in community groups and activities
Increasing Job Embeddedness
Links Organization Allow employee to
choose teams and projects to join
Provide Mentors/Coaches
Group New Agent Training/Orientation
Encourage membership in professional organizations
Links Community Encourage
community service Encourage
involvement in community/civic / professional organizations
Increasing Job Embeddedness
Sacrifice Organization Tailoring benefits to
meet individual needs Group celebrations Support
Telecommuting and other family friendly work arrangements
Generous Retirement Plans
Sacrifice Community (Limited ability to
influence) Examples would be:
Home buying assistance
Transportation assistance
Promoting w/o relocating
Survey Items of Interest
Survey Items of Interest
Survey Items of Concern
Survey Items of Concern
Questions
Interested in testing Job Embeddedness in your state?Jeffery Young, PhD – [email protected]